Even Trump’s Competitor is an Idiot

Biden, Russia’s not Iraq! Threatening the Kremlin over non-existent election meddling endangers not only the US but the world too

Scott Ritter

is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

21 Jul, 2020 20:54

Together with his fellow Democrats, Joe Biden’s playing a dangerous game of Russia-baiting that lacks any basis in fact, and could lead to a precipitous fracturing of US-Russian relations.

The Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for president has put his foot down, so to speak, when it comes to the issue of Russian interference in US elections.

“I am putting the Kremlin and other foreign governments on notice,” Biden announced in a lengthy statement. “If elected president, I will treat foreign interference in our election as an adversarial act that significantly affects the relationship between the United States and the interfering nation’s government,” he wrote.

If such interference is detected, he declared he would direct his administration “to leverage all appropriate instruments of national power and make full use of my executive authority to impose substantial and lasting costs on state perpetrators.” According to Biden, the costs that could be imposed on Russia include “financial-sector sanctions, asset freezes, cyber responses, and the exposure of corruption.” More ominously, he noted that “a range of other actions could also be taken, depending on the nature of the attack. I will direct our response at a time and in a manner of our choosing.”

It doesn’t matter that the notion of Russian interference in US elections is little more than politicized fiction intended to explain away Hillary Clinton’s embarrassing 2016 electoral loss to Donald Trump, further sustained for the sole purpose of undermining the Trump presidency.

From the moment the Clinton campaign became aware there was a major leak of potentially damaging data from the computer servers of the Democratic National Committee, campaign manager Robby Mook began manufacturing a ‘Russia-did-it’ narrative. That was magnified, in turn, by Perkins Coie, the law firm behind the funding of the infamous Steele dossier, and subsequently picked up on by the FBI and CIA to justify a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, alleging collusion with Russia. It doesn’t matter that virtually every aspect of the Russian election interference narrative has been debunked.

Also on rt.com ‘Russian agent’ or Steele’s patsy? ‘Revealed’ identity of primary sub-source for Russiagate dossier sparks fresh speculation

Facts do not matter

Facts no longer matter – only perception.This is why the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, continues to repeat the mantra “all roads lead to Putin,” when, in fact, as regards the Trump administration, they clearly do not. It’s also why the Democratic Congressional leadership would ask for a “defensive counterintelligence briefing” from the FBI regarding Russian interference in the 2020 presidential election when, in fact, they already know no such intelligence exists.

The Big Lie is a tactic that dates back to Nazi propagandists,and it was seemingly perfected by Pelosi and her fellow Democrats in their collective effort to propagate the Russian collusion narrative.

The truth has always been an elusive commodity in American politics, especially during the “silly season” of a presidential campaign, when promises are made with no intention of ever keeping them, and minor indiscretions are transformed into existential crises. While the impact of this trend toward diminished honesty and integrity can be damaging politically, beyond the fact that American democracy is being built, literally, on a body of lies deliberately told and willingly received, the potential for inflicting meaningful physical and fiscal harm on the United States by the telling of these lies is minuscule.

Not so with the Russia-did-it fantasy being woven by the Democrats. Take Joe Biden’s statement regarding his plans to retaliate against Russia in the event of any interference by Moscow in the 2020 US presidential election. He speaks of “cyber responses,” and “a range of other actions” that ominously point to something more than a mere slap on the wrist.

Biden would do well to read Russia’s recently released document governing its nuclear deterrence policy, where any attack, cyber or otherwise, on the “critical state or military facilities of the Russian Federation the failure of which will lead to the disruption of the retaliatory action of nuclear forces” could trigger a nuclear launch.

Also on rt.com Democrats cry ‘foreign meddling’ in 2020 election in letter to FBI, reportedly over probe of Biden dealings in Ukraine

Pandemic of Russophobia

But Biden, Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats aren’t the only Americans infected by what can only be described as a pandemic of Russophobia. A coterie of former “national security experts” has taken upon themselves the task of painting Russia as an enemy of the United States.A recent example of this came in an op-ed published in the Washington Post by a quartet of retired CIA officials, who used it to bash the Trump administration’s efforts to build a cooperative relationship with Russian intelligence. “Putin’s Kremlin,” these former spies wrote, “is not interested in a constructive relationship with the United States. Instead, Putin sees himself in a political war with us. And he benefits domestically by blaming the United States for all his ills.”

The average reader might be excused from comprehending that the authors of this screed were, at one point or another in their careers, involved in committing the very acts against Russia – recruiting agents, interfering in domestic politics, stealing secrets – that they now accuse Russia of undertaking.

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the Russian intelligence services carry out robust collection operations targeting the United States. Such is the reality of life. For these former CIA officers to single out such action as an unforgivable sin, given their own resumes, is the height of hypocrisy. It also exposes the intellectual vacuum that exists among these so-called “experts” when it comes to assessing Russia during the time of its current president, Vladimir Putin.

Also on rt.com Injustice & inequality are the real cause of US riots – but establishment who ignored the problem now cowardly blame Russia

The US intelligence community – past and present – doesn’t have a monopoly on Putin-based Russophobia. This has been a trend in American academia ever since the demise of Boris Yeltsin, the former Communist Party apparatchik turned democratic leader of post-Soviet Russia whose ties with, and inability to stand up to, the United States undermined Russian sovereignty.

Putin’s efforts to repair the damage done by Yeltsin’s obsequious surrender to American political and economic pressure has been the source of resentment for a generation of post-Soviet Russian specialists, including the likes of Michael McFaul (President Obama’s principal advisor on Russia), Anne Applebaum, Masha Gessen, Fiona Hill, and others.

The collective impact of this Russophobia within the American political body has created a cognitive dissonance that long ago transformed into the pathogenesis of psychosis. The five cognitive distortions that are keyed to such psychotic behavior – jumping to conclusions, intentionalizing, catastrophizing, emotional reasoning and dichotomous thinking – are all present in the words and actions of American politicians, academics, and journalists in their treatment of Putin’s Russia today.

The distortions peddled by these so-called “experts,” backed up by the legion of similarly affected former national security veterans, has colored domestic American thinking on Russia to the point that virtually any allegation can be leveled against Russia and its leadership, regardless of credulity or corroboration, and it will be accepted as fact by a population pre-programmed to accept at face value whatever narrative it is spoonfed.

In this way, Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill) can continue to question President Trump about uncorroborated allegations pertaining to Russian “bounties” in Afghanistan without any repercussion.

Americans would do well to remember the last time such a psychosis swept over the nation – in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Joe Biden was a proponent of that conflict, and played a major role in selling it to the American people. Pro hint, Joe: Russia isn’t Iraq. You and your fellow Democrats will put America and the rest of the world in grave peril, should you proceed with acting out on your schizophrenic cognitive biases regarding Russia.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Democrats Block GOP Block Against Iran Nuclear Deal

 
Senate Blocks GOP Measure Against Iran Nuclear Deal

Move ends opponents’ chances of unraveling international agreement
By KRISTINA PETERSON

Updated Sept. 10, 2015 7:40 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama won the biggest foreign-policy fight of his second term Thursday when supporters of his nuclear accord with Iran thwarted an effort to cripple it, paving the way for the deal’s implementation.

The victory was sealed in a procedural vote, as the Senate voted 58-42, short of the 60 votes needed, on a measure aimed at derailing the international agreement. The vote effectively ends a bitter, partisan fight in Congress over the accord, and spares Mr. Obama from the need for a veto to safeguard the deal.

“Today, the Senate took an historic step forward and voted to enable the United States to work with our international partners to enable the implementation of the comprehensive, long-term deal that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Obama said in a statement after the vote. “This vote is a victory for diplomacy, for American national security, and for the safety and security of the world.”

The House has yet to conclude its own series of votes on the nuclear deal, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) indicated the Senate would repeat its vote next week. But with Democrats unlikely to change their positions, the deal’s opponents now have no shot at passing legislation capable of unraveling the international accord.


The agreement reached on July 14 in Vienna imposes strict curbs on Iran’s nuclear program, which will start to be eased after 10 years. In exchange, the U.S., the European Union and the United Nations will lift tight international sanctions on Tehran, contingent on Iran’s compliance with the deal.

All Republicans and a handful of Democrats in Congress are opposed to the deal, worried that its terms, particularly after 10 years, would leave a more economically secure Iran capable of producing a nuclear weapon quickly.

“This deal grants Iran permanent sanctions relief in exchange for only temporary limitations on its nuclear program,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), a former Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said on the Senate floor Thursday.

In the weeks leading up to Thursday’s vote, Democrats faced competing pressures from liberal groups urging them to back Mr. Obama’s diplomacy and critics in a divided Jewish community, who feared Iran would deploy its new resources to fund acts of terrorism against Israel. The pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee had leaned on Democrats to oppose the deal and urged them to refrain from blocking it on a procedural motion.

After the vote, Mr. McConnell made clear that he wouldn’t let Democrats bring up legislation that he said would make them look tough on Iran unless they had enough support for it to become law.
“We’re not interested in using floor time for get-well efforts over on the other side to try to fool their constituents into thinking, ‘I really was serious about Iran, in spite of the fact that I voted for the deal that you hate,’ ” Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor Thursday.

Public opinion of the nuclear accord has slipped over the summer, according to the Pew Research Center. In early September, just 21% of adults polled by Pew approved of the agreement, down from 33% in mid-July. Nearly half now disapprove of it, up slightly from 45% in July.

Some Democrats who said they reluctantly endorsed an imperfect deal have already called for renewing the 20-year-old Iran Sanctions Act, which expires at the end of 2016. The law prohibits investments of more than $20 million by U.S. or foreign firms in much of Iran’s energy industry. Lawmakers from both parties have said such sanctions must be reauthorized to ensure that Iran can be punished if it cheats on the nuclear deal or commits other terrorism or human-rights violations.
The White House hasn’t said whether it would support or block the renewal of the sanctions act, but wants to make sure Congress doesn’t make sanctions moves that would prompt Iran to say the U.S. reneged on the deal.

Although Mr. Obama has known for more than a week that he had the support to win a veto fight, suspense remained for days over whether the Senate, narrowly controlled by the GOP, would be able to pass a resolution disapproving the deal, setting up a veto. Republicans hold 54 of the chamber’s 100 seats, but most measures need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles, enabling Democrats to retain leverage.

Some Democrats had been wary of taking a vote that could be perceived as thwarting an up-or-down vote on a monumental foreign-policy agreement. But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) told Democrats that the procedural vote would become the final referendum on the nuclear deal. He later stood behind the table where Democrats cast their votes, watching as all 42 members of the Democratic caucus who backed the deal stuck together.

All Senate Republicans and four Senate Democrats voted to advance the disapproval resolution. The four Senate Democrats who oppose the nuclear accord are Mr. Menendez and Sens. Charles Schumer of New York, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

The House, meanwhile, passed a measure on party lines Thursday accusing Mr. Obama of failing to comply with legislation enacted in May giving lawmakers 60 days to review and vote on the Iran deal. Republicans have said the clock hasn’t started because the administration didn’t submit two confidential side deals reached between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. agency that will be policing the nuclear deal.

IAEA officials have said they don’t release the confidential agreements the agency strikes with any country, including the U.S. White House officials said they have fully complied with the review law, including briefing any member of Congress who asked to learn more about the IAEA accords.
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) told reporters Thursday that it was “very possible” that House Republicans would sue Mr. Obama over what they see as his failure to comply with the May review law.

“This is a bad deal with decadeslong consequences for the security of the American people and our allies,” Mr. Boehner said. “We’ll use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow and delay this agreement from being fully implemented.”

Separately, a resolution approving the deal is expected to fail in the GOP-controlled House Friday.
—Carol E. Lee contributed to this article.

Obama Losing His Own Party’s Support On Iran Deal

 

President Obama has Difficult Time Selling Iran Agreement
August 13, 2015
By John Ubaldi

Contributor, In Homeland Security

After last week’s address at American University, President Obama is now facing opposition from his own party as New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer came out against the nuclear agreement with Iran.Iran nuclear deal

Other Democrats have joined Schumer in his opposition to this agreement, including the ranking House Democrat on the foreign affairs committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, and top Democrat Rep. Nita Lowery of the appropriations committee, and other Democratic representatives such as Reps. Grace Meng and Kathleen Rice.

At American University, President Obama laid out his vision of why this agreement is in the best interests of the U.S.

Obama tried to link the two periods of history with Kennedy’s test ban to his recent nuclear deal with Iran. One has to be careful in utilizing a historical period to compare contemporary times, far too often politicians over use history to fit their present day narratives.

The president has to be careful how this is placed in historical context, as Kennedy’s atmospheric nuclear test ban was also in the back drop of the Berlin crisis and the Cuban missile crisis, which had the world on the brink of nuclear war.

President Kennedy had broad based support for his effort, unlike today where opposition is fierce against the nuclear agreement with Iran, mostly coming from Republicans and now some key Democrats, who have signaled their opposition to the agreement.

On Thursday, during the Republican presidential debate, Sen. Schumer issued a statement detailing his opposition of the agreement, while the White House immediately began to marginalize the senator, commenting how he supported the Iraq War, and is now wrong with the president on foreign policy.

The president did not help his cause when he stated last week, and continued to double down on his comments in various media interviews that, “In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.”

The president is not winning friends to his side by his linkage of the opposition to the leaders of Iran. First he did it with Republicans, now he is adding Democrats to the mix. This linkage will not build bipartisan support for this agreement; it will just harden their position even more.

Invoking the legacy of the authorization to use force in Iraq, one has to remember that both Republicans and Democrats voted to go into Iraq, including Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and incidentally, both voted against the first Persian Gulf War and then voted for the Iraq War authorization.

Even former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War, to include Senate minority leader Harry Reid, so one has to be careful when placing events in historical content.

Schumer’s opposition stems from Iran’s nuclear ambitions that might be thwarted in the first 10 years, but after that it is open-ended.

On Tuesday, Schumer stated, “That means the United States and all the governments in the world say it’s OK for Iran to be a threshold nuclear state.” Schumer also mentioned that the agreement allows $50 billion in sanctioned money to be released, allowing its usage to be sent to terror groups around the Middle East.

Schumer continued to lay out his objections to the agreement, with the Wall Street Journal reporting his concerns over the 24-day delay of inspecting suspected nuclear facilities during the first 10 years of the deal. He also complained that the U.S. couldn’t unilaterally demand inspections, and instead would be dependent on building support from a majority of an eight-member bloc that includes Russia, China and Iran—essentially forcing the European members of the group to agree.
 
“It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections,” Mr. Schumer said.

An additional concern of Schumer is the billions of dollars which would flow to Iran once sanctions are lifted, to be used by Tehran to give to its proxy forces across the Middle East, since the U.S. has identified Iran as a state sponsor of Terror. Schumer is concerned that the Islamic Republic “would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.”

If the president is going to secure this deal, he and his administration are going to have to do a better job of lobbying Congress, otherwise he will lose.

The Democrats Who Will Overturn The Iran Deal

Here Are The Wobbly Democrats Who Could Make Or Break The Iran Deal

The White House still needs 17 senators to promise to protect the nuclear agreement.
2 hours ago | Updated 53 minutes ago

Jessica Schulberg Foreign Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post
Ryan Grim Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama needs 34 senators or 144 House members to stick with him in support of the nuclear deal recently negotiated with Iran. Obama has vowed to veto a congressional resolution of disapproval, which lawmakers are scheduled to vote on in September, and one-third of either chamber will be required to prevent the veto from being overturned.

The House is considered an easier playing field for Obama, since Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is a strong backer of the deal and has proven adept at holding together her caucus.
But much of the speculation has focused on the Senate, where a close look at the landscape suggests that the White House may be able to get to 34. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) even suggested this week that the chamber may not have the votes to pass the resolution of disapproval in the first place, meaning Obama might not have to use his veto power. With the possible exception of Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Republicans are expected to vote as a party against the deal. This means the White House will have to pull the remaining 34 votes from the 44 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats.

Seventeen Democrats have publicly indicated they will vote against a resolution of disapproval, meaning they will back the agreement with Iran. A full list can be found at the end of this article. This means Obama is 17 votes shy of the number he needs.

The Huffington Post has evaluated the positions that the remaining members of the Senate Democratic caucus are likely to take, based on public statements, voting histories and conversations with officials and congressional staff members.

The analysis indicates that 14 undecided Democrats are likely to back the deal, bringing the number of pro-deal voters to a probable 31. Another 11 senators are wavering, but may be convinced by public pressure or by the Obama administration — which is heavily lobbying all of the fence-sitters — to come around to supporting the agreement. If all eleven senators came along, it would bring the total to 42.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is the only Democrat who has publicly announced that he will vote down the deal, although Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) is expected to join him.

VERY LIKELY YES, BUT NOT OFFICIALLY IN THE BAG (14)

Sherrod Brown (Ohio) @sensherrodbrown
“Americans prefer a diplomatic solution that ensures Iran cannot develop or obtain a nuclear weapon,” Brown said on July 14, the day the deal was announced. “If early reports are correct, it appears the agreement the U.S. and other U.N. Security Council nations have finally reached with Iran is the kind of durable and verifiable agreement that is far preferable to further escalation and possible military action.”
More recently, Brown said he was “so disappointed” in the politicized nature of the debate and criticized lawmakers who came out in opposition to the agreement the day it was announced.
Michael Bennet (Colo.) @senbennetCO
“A good deal could bring greater stability to the Middle East, more security throughout the world, and help avoid escalation in the region,” Bennet said on July 14. The Colorado Democrat is close to the White House and up for re-election in 2016.
Tom Carper (Del.) @senatorcarper
“I’m doing my homework, doing my due diligence,” Carper told Delaware Public Media late last week. “I’m leaning yes, but I’m going to hold off until I actually finish reading the deal over the next week or so and I have a couple phone calls I want to make to other people who have been involved in this and help make the decision.”
Al Franken (Minn.) @alfranken
“Obviously, a diplomatic resolution to Iran’s nuclear program is preferable to military action. I hope that the deal will verifiably block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon,” Franken said July 14. The Jewish senator was one of several Democrats who skipped Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in March, which was aimed at convincing lawmakers to oppose the negotiations with Iran. His refusal to attend signaled a likely pro-deal vote, and his fellow Minnesotan, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, is on record in favor.
Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) @maziehirono
“The pathway to implementing a deal to effectively prevent Iran from obtaining or developing a nuclear weapon is in sight,” the junior senator from Hawaii said on July 14. Sen. Brian Schatz, her fellow Democrat from Hawaii, has already said he’s a firm yes.
Joe Manchin (W.Va.) @Sen_JoeManchin.
The red-state Democrat has said he is leaning towards backing the agreement. “Everybody says there is a better deal,” he told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in late July. “What options are on the table or even basically discussed I could consider voting for?
“I’m leaning very strongly to saying, OK, let’s try going along with the P5+1,” he continued, referring to the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, which collectively negotiated the deal with Iran.
Manchin backed two rounds of sanctions legislation in the past two years that were opposed by the Obama administration, which claimed that the timing of the sanctions could upend the negotiations with Iran. However, the senator eventually withdrew his support for one of the bills, citing a desire to give the negotiators a chance to succeed.
Claire McCaskill (Mo.) @clairecmc
“The analysis I’m doing is pretty simple,” McCaskill said Tuesday. “It’s not a perfect deal, there’s a lot of things about this deal that are bad, but what is the new status quo if we walk away?” McCaskill came out with an early endorsement of presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has urged Congress to approve the Iran deal.
Jeff Merkley (Ore.) @SenJeffMerkley
“Today’s announcement is a significant milestone in the effort to preclude Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon,” Merkley said on July 14. “I will be deeply engaged in examining the details in preparation for the upcoming review by Congress.” It is unlikely that Merkley, a strong progressive and advocate of peaceful resolutions to conflict, would oppose the deal.
Merkley supported the president by opposing the two controversial new rounds of sanctions that the administration was lobbying against. Moreover, as an undergraduate at Stanford University during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, he wrote his honors thesis about the U.S. role in propping up Iran’s unpopular shah. Merkley wrote in the paper that support for repressive leaders “has made America seem both hypocritical and imperialistic.”
Edward Markey (Mass.) @SenMarkey
“I commend Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz and the entire U.S. diplomatic team for their tireless and committed work at these historic negotiations,” Markey said the day the deal was announced. “We need to ensure that this agreement has the most invasive inspections possible, the most intensive enforcement provisions possible, including expedited ability to reinstate sanctions if Iran violates the agreement, and the most aggressive means to remove the technological capability for Iran to quickly make a nuclear weapon.”
Markey declined to back the two rounds of sanctions legislation opposed by the administration, and is unlikely to break with the White House on the nuclear deal.
Barbara Mikulski (Md.) @SenatorBarb
The retiring senator from Maryland has been noticeably quiet on the Iran deal, but is seen as likely to vote to uphold it. She abstained from both efforts to hit Iran with additional sanctions, and Ambassador Wendy Sherman — the lead U.S. negotiator for the nuclear talks with Iran — was once her chief of staff. Mikulski is planning to visit the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. agency charged with oversight of Iran’s nuclear program, during the August recess, and will likely make her announcement when she returns.
Patty Murray (Wash.) @PattyMurray
Murray has been quiet since the announcement of the nuclear deal, telling Politico it would be “a while” before she reaches a decision. But Murray declined to support both sanctions efforts, explaining to her constituents in 2014 that sanctions should be avoided to give the Obama administration time to negotiate a “strong, verifiable comprehensive agreement.”
Jack Reed (R.I.) @SenJackReed
“This agreement demonstrates the power of American-led diplomacy and establishes a strict and robust monitoring and verification system. If fully implemented, this deal will help control Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon,” Reed said the day the deal was announced.
Jon Tester (Mont.) @jontester
Though he has not given any indication as to which way he he will vote, Tester appears open to supporting the deal. He announced that as he contemplated his decision, he met with and quizzed former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer and former Ambassador William Luers, both of whom are strong supporters of the deal. He also met with Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. and a staunch critic of the accord.
In a publicly posted letter to the White House, Tester enumerated his concerns with the nuclear deal but also thanked the individuals who worked on the negotiations, describing them as “patriots.” The State Department responded promptly to his questions.
Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) @SenWhitehouse
“Whenever possible, I believe the U.S. should seek to advance our security goals through diplomacy rather than force. The President and his team, particularly Secretary Kerry, deserve tremendous credit for pursuing this diplomatic solution to one of our world’s most pressing security challenges,” Whitehouse said on July 14.
Of the Democrats who are undecided, Whitehouse was the only senator other than Franken who skipped Netanyahu’s speech in March.
He told Politico on Tuesday that he will make a decision next week. “If I had to make a guesstimation, I would say there will be enough senators to sustain the president’s veto, and there’s a chance — just a chance — of keeping the number below 60,”
Whitehouse said. “I wouldn’t say there’s a big chance, but there’s an outside chance.”
ON THE FENCE, BUT BEING LOBBIED HEAVILY (11)
Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) @SenBlumenthal
Blumenthal was an original co-sponsor of the two consecutive efforts to pass additional sanctions in the midst of negotiations. However, his July 14 reaction to the deal was neutral: “I welcome the announcement of an agreement with Iran after a long and difficult diplomatic road,” he said. “While our common hope may be that diplomacy has succeeded in barring an Iranian path to nuclear weapons capability, Congress must apply exacting standards and strict scrutiny, especially given Iran’s history of deceit and international law violations.”
Cory Booker (N.J.) @corybooker
Booker has yet to issue a statement and is currently juggling his loyalty to Obama and his ideological support of peace and diplomacy with pressure from pro-Israel lobbying groups, who gave Booker significant backing during the last election cycle. Earlier this year, Booker heeded the president’s call to resist voting for new sanctions.
The Rev. Al Sharpton, who is close to Booker, admonished the senator on Twitter last week, suggesting it was hypocritical to quote Tupac saying “They have money for war but can’t feed the poor” while also casting a vote that could lead to war.
Maria Cantwell (Wash.) @SenatorCantwell
“It’s a really busy time around here and people are trying to do other things,” Cantwell told Politico shortly before the August recess. “And so if you don’t have to decide in the next two days, then people will take their time.” Cantwell has given no other public indication of how she’ll vote.
Chris Coons (Del.) @ChrisCoons
Coons is a close ally of the Obama administration. When lawmakers were considering legislation to give Congress a vote on the eventual Iran deal, Coons, along with Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), played an instrumental role in modifying the bill into something that was amenable to the White House. However, he has also supported controversial sanctions legislation in the past.
Before leaving for recess, Coons said he had some concerns about the IAEA’s ability to conduct a meaningful investigation into whether Iran sought nuclear weapons in the past.
Joe Donnelly (Ind.) @SenDonnelly
Donnelly has been one of the most tight-lipped senators about the issue, but supported the efforts to sanction Iran in the midst of talks.
Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) @SenatorHeitkamp
Heitkamp was one of the original co-sponsors of the bill that provided Congress with the opportunity to vote on the Iran deal — which, in its original version, faced a veto threat from Obama. Although Heitkamp stayed quiet after the initial announcement of the deal, she has since posted the entire text of the agreement on Medium and encouraged her constituents to read up.
She recently advocated lifting the export ban on U.S. oil, arguing that if Iran’s oil industry received sanctions relief, U.S. oil exports should be allowed to flow freely — an indication she thinks the nuclear deal is likely to go into effect.
Heitkamp is likely to find herself under pressure from her sizable progressive women’s donor network. Her supporters was disappointed by her vote against background check legislation, but cheered when she opposed Larry Summers’ bid for chairman of the Federal Reserve. Many of those donors are pushing for approval of the Iran deal.
Gary Peters (Mich.) @Peters4Michigan
Peters has not yet issued a statement on the Iran deal, but was a co-sponsor on the most recent sanctions legislation. As the lone freshman Democrat, Peters is unlikely to make waves by breaking with a president of his party on the cornerstone of the administration’s foreign policy agenda.
Harry Reid (Nev.) @SenatorReid
Although the retiring Senate Minority Leader has not come out publicly in favor of the nuclear accord yet, he has tended to heed the Obama administration’s requests to give diplomacy a chance. As majority leader in the last Congress, Reid blocked attempts to vote on new sanctions. More recently, he opposed the timing of the vote on the bill that gave Congress a vote on the deal, again citing concerns that it would hinder negotiations.
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) @SenStabenow
Stabenow has been noticeably quiet on the Iran deal. She has not issued a statement and her public comments have been cryptic while also suggesting she is open to the accord. “We have to look at what the alternatives are and really be very thoughtful because it is incredibly serious for the United States and for Israel and for the world. … It’s a very difficult issue,” she told The Detroit News last month.
Stabenow is the vice chairwoman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee and close with Schumer, who has publicly opposed the deal. She recently defended Schumer against the administration’s criticism of his decision, saying, “I think it’s very unfortunate to see the comments coming from people connected with the White House.”
Mark Warner (Va.) @MarkWarner
Warner has not yet indicated which way he’ll vote, but recently pushed back on critics who accused the Obama administration of rushing into a bad deal to cement the president’s legacy. “I find it remarkable that some members seem to impugn that you are not there trying to do the best deal possible for the United States of America and for long-term prospects of stability in the region,” he said to Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator, during a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing.
“I’ve got more due diligence to do,” he said at the time about his position on the deal.
Ron Wyden (Ore.) @RonWyden
“I said all along I was skeptical that Iran’s leaders would agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons program and I have questions about whether this agreement accomplishes that, particularly in light of Iran’s history on this issue,” Wyden said on July 14. “However, I will use my seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee to thoroughly review the details.”
Wyden, who is Jewish, is up for re-election in 2016 and has been a top recipient of funding from pro-Israel groups, the most powerful of which oppose the Iran deal. However, Wyden abided by the Obama administration’s requests to hold off on new sanctions.
LEANING NO (2)
Ben Cardin (Md.) @SenatorCardin
Cardin was noncommittal in his July 14 response to the deal: “In our deliberations we need to ensure the negotiations resulted in a comprehensive, long-lasting, and verifiable outcome that also provides for snap-back of sanctions should Iran deviate from its commitments. Congress faces a solemn charge that I expect will be fulfilled to the best of our abilities and at the highest of standards beginning today.”
As the newly ascendant ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Cardin acted as the liaison between the White House and committee chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) in the lead-up to a vote on the bill that gave Congress a vote on the deal — his involvement ultimately helped produce a watered-down version of the bill that was amenable to the White House. The bill was touted as a sign of the strength the committee could wield with bipartisan cooperation.
(However, if Cardin hoped that Corker would join him in bipartisan support of the Iran deal, those hopes were quickly dashed. Although Corker has not formally announced which way he will vote, he began loudly criticizing the agreement almost immediately after it was announced.)
In the past, Cardin has cooperated closely with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the staunchest critics of the deal, and is facing pressure from the group to vote down the agreement.
Bob Casey (Pa.) @SenBobCasey
Casey was an original co-sponsor on the two controversial attempts to intensify sanctions. In his only statement since the deal was announced, Casey said, “I will be conducting a thorough review of the agreement to evaluate whether it protects our national security interests.” Pro-Israel constituents make up a significant portion of his suburban Philadelphia donor base.
ALMOST DEFINITELY NO (1)
Bob Menendez (N.J.) @SenatorMenendez
A known Iran hawk and the author of nearly every piece of recent sanctions legislation against Iran, Menendez is widely assumed to be a no vote on the Iran bill. He slammed the agreement in his initial statement: “I’m concerned the redlines we drew have turned into green-lights; that Iran will be required only to limit rather than eliminate its nuclear program, while the international community will be required to lift the sanctions, and that it doesn’t provide for anytime-any-place inspections of suspected sites. The bottom line is: The deal doesn’t end Iran’s nuclear program – it preserves it.” However, Menendez insists that he’s still reviewing the deal.
DEFINITELY NO (1)
Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) @SenSchumer
The incoming Senate Democratic leader is currently the only member of his party in the Senate who has officially come out against the deal. “I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power,” Schumer wrote in a statement.
While this position did not come as a surprise, it was met with harsh rebuke by progressive Democratic groups, who have vowed to withhold funding from Schumer and other Democrats who oppose the nuclear agreement.
PLOT TWIST: THE REPUBLICAN WHO COULD SAVE THE DEAL (1)
Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) @JeffFlake
“On the whole, this agreement measured against the ideal doesn’t look all that good,” Flake said during a Senate floor speech in August. “Against the alternative, it’s a much closer call.”
The junior Arizona senator has demonstrated comfort with breaking from his party on a range of issues — including Iran. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was drafting the bill to give Congress a vote on the deal, Flake was the key Republican calling for his colleagues to hold back on “poison pill” amendments that would cost the bill Democratic support.
*The 17 senators who have publicly pledged to back the Iran nuclear agreement are: Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

More Democrats Align Against Iran Deal

3 House Democrats Say They Will Oppose Iran Deal

By Jason Devaney
Tuesday, 04 Aug 2015 20:48 PM

Three Democrats in the House said Tuesday they are against the nuclear agreement made with Iran and will work to have it shot down when the chamber votes on it next month.

Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., an assistant Democratic Whip; Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee; and Ted Deutch, D-Fla., the ranking Democrat on the Middle East Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, are opposed to the deal struck last month between Iran and the group of nations called the P5+1, which includes the United States.

Brian Shankman of the American Israel Public Asffairs Committee announced the opposition in an email to supporters.

“I’m writing with extremely good news, as three prominent members of Congress have just announced that they intend to vote in opposition to the deal with Iran,” Shankman wrote.

All three lawmakers said they have concerns with the deal over security issues.

“I’m going to vote against the Iran deal,” Israel told Newsday.

“I tried very hard to get to yes. But at the end of the day, despite some positive elements in the deal, the totality compelled me to oppose it.”

Lowey, who has served in the House since 1989, said national security is at risk under the terms of the Iran deal.

“Preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is an essential national security imperative,” Lowey said in a statement. “Since the nuclear agreement was reached between Iran and the P5+1 countries, I have reviewed its details and consulted with officials in the Obama Administration, regional experts, foreign leaders, Congressional colleagues, and my constituents.

“In my judgment, sufficient safeguards are not in place to address the risks associated with the agreement.”


In an op-ed for the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel, Deutch argued the deal could lead to increased terrorism at the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah.
“Too many issues I have long raised as essential to any nuclear deal with Iran are not adequately addressed in this agreement,” Deutch wrote. “I will vote against it when Congress reconvenes in September.

“There are different predictions about what will happen if Congress rejects this deal. But the consequences of approving it aren’t up for debate. Opening Iran up to foreign investment, increasing its oil exports, and unfreezing over $100 billion in assets means more money for Hamas for building terror tunnels in Gaza, more weapons for Hezbollah in Lebanon, more slaughter in Syria, and more violence worldwide.”

Israel, Lowey, and Deutch are all Jewish. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu joins them in their opposition to the agreement with Iran.

“Israel is not bound by this deal with Iran, and Israel is not bound by this deal with Iran because Iran continues to seek our destruction,” Netanyahu said last month.

“We will always defend ourselves.”

A recent poll shows Americans seem to agree with the trio of Democrats opposed to the Iran deal, with 57 percent saying they are against it.

Democrats “Iffy” About Iran Deal (Ezekiel 17)

Obama: Some Democrats getting ‘squishy’ in support of Iran deal

By Deirdre Walsh and Sunlen Serfaty, CNN
Updated 8:51 PM ET, Thu July 30, 2015

Intense battle on Capitol Hill over Iran deal

Washington (CNN)

President Barack Obama said Thursday night that he can feel some Democratic members of Congress getting “squishy” in their support of the Iran deal, bowing to the “political heat” they feel from the “fierce” lobbying campaign against the Iran deal.

“Right now, the opponents of this deal have been flooding congressional offices. There are 20 million ads up right now in districts to put pressure on members of Congress. And they are feeling it,” Obama said on a conference call with grassroots supporters. “I’m meeting with the members of Congress and they don’t really buy the arguments of the opponents but I can tell when they start getting squishy and they start getting squishy because they are feeling the political heat.”
The blunt assessment comes as members of Congress head back into their districts for the month of August, and could face contentious town halls with their constituents.

The President turned the call into something of a call to arms ahead of those town halls, telling his supporters to “get loud and active” against the other side’s lobbying effort. He warned them that without their voices, he believes, the same forces that got the U.S. into the Iraq War could scuttle this deal.

“The lobbying that is taking place on the other side is fierce, it is well financed, it is relentless. And in the absence of your voices, you are going to see the same array of forces that got us into the Iraq War, leading to a situation in which we forgo a historic opportunity and we are back on the path of potential military conflict.”

“If you’ve got a whole bunch of folks who are big check writers to political campaigns, running TV ads and billionaires who happily finance super PACs and they are putting the squeeze on members of Congress, even well-meaning ones and good folks, and they don’t hear from you, this opportunity can slip away,” he added.

Obama warns House Democrats

The conference call follows a warning from Obama to House Democrats on Wednesday night not to reject the nuclear deal.

According to two House Democrats who attended a reception at the White House with the President, he predicted there would be fallout for future relationships abroad if Congress failed to back the agreement with Iran at the end of a 60-day review period in September.

New York Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler summarized the president’s message, saying he told House Democrats that if they helped block the deal, “It’s going to greatly lessen our credibility in dealing with anything in the future because people are going to say for a long time: ‘You can’t deal with them because who knows what they’re going to do.'”

Nadler met one-on-one with the President before the entire House Democratic caucus heard a 20-minute presentation by Obama on the details of the deal. Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee who has been skeptical of the Iran deal, also had a one-on-one meeting with Obama.

With no time for questions after the meeting was disrupted by votes, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that the President invited any member who had questions to come back. A couple dozen took him up on the offer, so after votes were completed that group returned to the White House and spent nearly two hours with the President.

Earnest described the conversation with House Democrats as “taking on directly some of the most common criticism of the agreement” and also noted his interest in having one-on-one meetings.
“Spending time with individual members of Congress and answering their questions directly, again, I think is an indication that the president feels a personal responsibility to engage with members of Congress who are keeping an open mind,” he said.

Earnest said the President will continue to have many other conversations like these over the next several weeks. He disputed the notion that there is a “sense of urgency” right now due to concerns, but rather said it is because many members of Congress are leaving town over the next few weeks so the President want to sit down and talk with many of them before they left.

Following the discussion, Nadler said he’s still wrestling with the decision of how he’ll vote on the deal and the arguments Obama made.

“His message is that this is important, that if we want to avert a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands, we have to vote yes for this, there’s no other way. There are no other alternatives that bear close scrutiny,” he said.

 Nadler said the President “makes an impressive case” but that he still has questions.

A CNN/ORC poll this week found that a majority of Americans want Congress to reject the nuclear deal with Iran. Overall, 52% say Congress should reject the deal, 44% say it should be approved.